Can anybody explain what they were trying to sting here? Some kind of fraud surrounding foreclosures?
Price fixing on foreclosed properties sold by banks in (I believe) some kind of public manner.
The investigation sounds legit, geez why didn’t they just spend that extra bit of time to get the warrant?
And Philadelphia hides license plate readers on fake streetview cars. Police organisations - what is not to love?
This Isn’t a Google Streetview Car, It’s a Government Spy Truck
eta: oops, I missed that this is already covered here
Getting flashbacks to the doonesbury series where Zonker got busted for possession.
(and I’m noting how, in the last 40 years, pot has become so much closer to being legal, and so has warrantless wiretapping!)
If alleged bid rigging on foreclosures was actually happening, the Feds not only committed felonies but may have blown their case. When law enforcement breaks the law they not only are doing something unconscionable in the act, but are also hindering law enforcement in those cases. Hope they do get charged with felonies - their crimes are very serious on multiple levels - not that I expect they will.
Foreclosure auction rigging is a big freaking deal. They busted a bunch of folks in the last year or two in Contra Costa County, adjacent to Alameda County. It’s hard to get a warrant to bug a public space, but I can’t imagine any Judge couldn’t be convinced to give one if that’s where the collusion was taking place – on the courthouse steps.
Just who . . .do they think they are.
Would it be too jaded to suggest that this kind of agency lawbreaking is routine and this instance of it only got uncovered because bankster cartels have legal teams with blank-cheque budgets?
It appears that the Feds admitted the recordings/camera surveillance as evidence, then retracted the evidence which would be a huge red flag that something was going on.
They didn’t retract it until the opposing legal team kicked up a fuss. Hence my suspicions.
I have no idea if lawyers typically follow up to make sure evidence collected was legally collected, but it feels like the defense would at least spot check that, esp. when the evidence was a sea of audio/video recordings that would raise some flags since it’s an easy 4th Amendment out.
Reading up a bit more, the question of whether FBI behaviour here was illegal seems like the kind of thing I’d want to consult a lawyer about. It sounds shady, but when the defense asserts:
"Speaking in a public place does not mean that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy,"
Is that actually true in the US? 'cause I’m not a lawyer, but I thought it wasn’t.
Trust no one.
Especially the United States of America’s “intelligence” community.
Shit-stirrers all.
P.S. JK, y’all rock the world…
It’s malpractice not to. Only the drunk or ragingly incompetent would miss such an inquiry.
I keep reading the thread title as The FBI planted DRUGS…
Why, yes, some of our recordings were collected with bugs of questionable legality, but all of our important recordings were collected by this guy:
If you and one other person are alone (seemingly) in a public place, and speaking in low tones, wouldn’t you expect it to be a private communication? (and by “you”, I mean a reasonable person).
